Continuous Group Key Agreement Sample Clauses

Continuous Group Key Agreement. In the simple, restricted form that we consider here, Continuous Group Key Agreement (CGKA) allows a dynamic set of users to continuously establish symmetric group keys. For participating in a group, a user first generates a public key and a secret state via algorithm Gen. With the secret state, a user can add or remove users to or from a group via algorithms Add and Rem. Furthermore, each user can update the secrets in their state from time to time to recover from adversarial state corruptions via algorithm Up. We call the latter three actions group operations. After all users process a group operation via algorithm Proc, they share the same group key. In order to analyze the most efficient form of CGKA, we assume a central bulletin board B to which public information on the current group structure is posted (initially empty). Thus, newly added users can obtain the relevant information about the group (which intuitively may be of size Ω(n) anyway, where n is the current number of group members) from B, instead of receiving it explicitly from the adding user. Note: the MLS protocol specification indeed suggests the added user can obtain the group tree of the protocol (size Ω(n)) from a bulletin board (the delivery server) in this manner [7]. In the following, the added user simply downloads the entire board. Of course, in practice, this would be very inefficient, but this only strengthens our lower bound on the amount of communica- tion sent between current group members (as opposed to the amount of information retrieved from the bulletin board by added users).
Sample 1
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Continuous Group Key Agreement. This section describes the structure and security of the continuous group key agreement (CGKA) protocol introduced by Xxxxx et al. [3]. They first provided a formal definition and security model of TreeKEM, the core technology of the MLS protocol, as CGKA. Then, they developed RTreeKEM by improving the vulnerability of TreeKEM through a UPKE using the normal public key encryp- tion. In this paper, we utilize RTreeKEM with UPKE applied as a CGKA proto- col. A CGKA protocol aims at providing a steady stream of shared (symmetric) secret keys for a dynamically evolving set of parties. This aspect is tied together by epochs, where each epoch provides a timestamp role in asynchronous process- ing. CGKA schemes are non-interactive; that is, a party creates a new epoch by broadcasting a single message, which can then be processed by the other mem- bers to move along. Rather than relying on an actual broadcast scheme, CGKA schemes merely assume the existence of an untrusted (or partially trusted) deliv- ery service. As multiple parties might try to initiate a new epoch simultaneously, the delivery service’s main job is to determine the first one by picking an order. As a consequence, a party cannot immediately initiate a new epoch by itself. The MLS working group has improved on such stagnation and now considers the propose-and-commit method [8]. In this section, however, we present Alwen et al.’s (without propose-and-commit) CGKA protocol for simplicity. The basic structure of both schemes is the same, and we apply our ideas to Xxxxx et al.’s protocol from here onward. By applying our ideas to the propose-and-commit scheme, we can immediately construct CGKA-FA (as discussed in Section 5).
Sample 1
Continuous Group Key Agreement. To begin with, we define the notion of continuous group-key agreement (CGKA). Parties participating in the execution of a CGKA protocol will maintain a local state γ, allowing them to keep track of a common ratchet tree, to derive a shared secret. Parties will be able to add and remove users to the execution, and to rotate the keys along sections of the tree, thus achieving FS and PCS. Our definition is similar to that of [23], with the main difference that operations do not need to be confirmed individually by the server. Instead, the stateful server works in rounds, collects operations into batches and sends them out at the end of each round (note that setting the batch size equal to 1 would just return the definition from [23]). Accordingly, a party issuing an operation will no longer be able to pre-compute its new state should the operation be confirmed. Definition 1 (Asynchronous Continuous Group-key Agreement). An asynchronous continuous group-key agreement (CGKA) scheme is an 8-tuple of algorithms CGKA = (CGKA.Gen, CGKA.Init, CGKA.Add, CGKA.Rem, CGKA.Upd, CGKA.Dlv, CGKA.Proc, CGKA.Key) with the following syntax and semantics: ← Key Generation: Fresh InitKey pairs ((pk, sk), (ssk, svk)) CGKA.Gen(1λ) consist of a pair of public key encryption keys and a pair of digital signing keys. They are generated by users prior to joining a group, where λ denotes the security parameter. Public keys are used to invite parties to join a group.
Sample 1
Continuous Group Key Agreement. Informally, in a CGKA protocol any party ID1 can initialise a group G = (ID1, . . . , IDn) by sending a message to all group members, from which each group member can compute a shared group key I. The initiator ID1 must know a public key pki of each invitee IDi, which in practice could be realized by having a key-server where parties can deposit their keys. As this key-management problem is largely orthogonal to the construction of CGKA, in this work we will assume that such an infrastructure exists. Apart from initialising a group, CGKA allows any party IDi currently in the group to update its key. Informally, after an Update6 operation the state of IDi is secure even if its previous state completely leaked to an adversary. Moreover any group member can add a new group member, or remove an existing one. These operations (Update, Add, Remove) require sending a message to all members of the group. As we do not assume that the parties are online at the same time, IDi cannot simply send a message to IDj. Instead, all protocol messages are exchanged via an untrusted delivery server. Although the server can always prevent any communication taking place, we require that the shared group key in the CGKA protocol – and thus the messages encrypted in the messaging system built upon it – remains private. Another issue we must take into account is the fact that (at least for the protocols discussed below) operations must be performed in the same order by all parties in order to maintain a consistent state. Even if the delivery server is honest, it can happen that two parties try to execute an operation at the same time. In this case, an ordering must be enforced, and it is natural to let the delivery server do it. Whenever a party wants to initiate an Update/Remove/Add operation, it sends the message to the delivery server and waits for an answer. If it gets a confirmation, it updates its state and deletes the old one. If it gets a reject, it deletes the new state and keeps the old one. Note that when a party gets corrupted while waiting for the confirmation, both, the old and new state are leaked. Asynchronous Ratcheting Tree (ART). The first proposal of (a simplified variant of) a CGKA is the Asynchronous Ratcheting Tree (ART) by Xxxx-Xxxxxx et al. [8]. This protocol (as well as TreeKEM, discussed below, and our protocol) identifies the group with a binary tree where edges are directed and point from the leaves to the root.7 Each party IDi in the group is assigned ...
Sample 1

Related to Continuous Group Key Agreement

  • Continuous Employment For purposes of this Agreement, the continuous employment of the Grantee with the Company or a Subsidiary shall not be deemed to have been interrupted, and the Grantee shall not be deemed to have ceased to be an employee of the Company or Subsidiary, by reason of (a) the transfer of the Grantee’s employment among the Company and its Subsidiaries or (b) an approved leave of absence.

  • Continuous Operations Any employee or group of employees engaged in an operation for which there is regularly scheduled employment on a twenty-four (24) hour a day, seven (7) day a week basis shall be known as continuous operations employees.

  • Continuous Operation The work week shall provide for continuous operation based on a seven (7) day week, twenty-four (24) hours per day.

  • Continuous Pledge Subject to Section 2.4, the Pledgor will, at all times, keep pledged to the Lender pursuant hereto all Pledged Shares and all other shares of capital stock constituting Collateral, all Dividends and Distributions with respect thereto, and all other Collateral and other securities, instruments, proceeds, and rights from time to time received by or distributable to the Pledgor in respect of any Collateral.

  • Restriction on Continuous Offerings Notwithstanding the restrictions contained in Section 3.18.1, the Company, on behalf of itself and any successor entity, agrees that, without the prior written consent of the Representative, it will not, for a period of 12 months after the date of this Agreement, directly or indirectly in any “at-the-market” or continuous equity transaction, offer to sell, sell, contract to sell, grant any option to sell or otherwise dispose of shares of capital stock of the Company or any securities convertible into or exercisable or exchangeable for shares of capital stock of the Company.

  • Continuous Relationship with the Company Required Except as otherwise provided in this Section 3, this option may not be exercised unless the Participant, at the time he or she exercises this option, is, and has been at all times since the Grant Date, an employee or officer of, or consultant or advisor to, the Company or any parent or subsidiary of the Company as defined in Section 424(e) or (f) of the Code (an “Eligible Participant”).

  • Status as a Well-Known Seasoned Issuer (A) At the time of filing the Original Registration Statement, (B) at the time of the most recent amendment thereto for the purposes of complying with Section 10(a)(3) of the 1933 Act (whether such amendment was by post-effective amendment, incorporated report filed pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the 1934 Act or form of prospectus), (C) at the time the Company or any person acting on its behalf (within the meaning, for this clause only, of Rule 163(c) of the 1933 Act Regulations) made any offer relating to the Securities in reliance on the exemption of Rule 163 of the 1933 Act Regulations and (D) at the date hereof, the Company was and is a “well-known seasoned issuer” as defined in Rule 405 of the 1933 Act Regulations (“Rule 405”), including not having been and not being an “ineligible issuer” as defined in Rule 405. The Registration Statement is an “automatic shelf registration statement,” as defined in Rule 405, and the Securities, since their registration on the Registration Statement, have been and remain eligible for registration by the Company on a Rule 405 “automatic shelf registration statement.” The Company has not received from the Commission any notice pursuant to Rule 401(g)(2) of the 1933 Act Regulations objecting to the use of the automatic shelf registration statement form. At the time of filing the Original Registration Statement, at the earliest time thereafter that the Company or another offering participant made a bona fide offer (within the meaning of Rule 164(h)(2) of the 1933 Act Regulations) of the Securities and at the date hereof, the Company was not and is not an “ineligible issuer,” as defined in Rule 405.

  • Continuous Service The Parties shall continue providing services to each other during the pendency of any dispute resolution procedure, and the Parties shall continue to perform their obligations (including making payments in accordance with Article IV, Section 4) in accordance with this Agreement.

  • Previous Employment PROVIDER acknowledges and understands that Section 2252.901, Texas Government Code, prohibits A&M System from using state appropriated funds to enter into any employment contract, consulting contract, or professional services contract with any individual who has been previously employed, as an employee, by the agency within the past twelve (12) months. If PROVIDER is an individual, by signing this Agreement, PROVIDER certifies that Section 2252.901, Texas Government Code, does not prohibit the use of state appropriated funds for satisfying the payment obligations herein.

  • Continuous Perfection Grantor shall not change its name, identity or corporate structure in any manner which might make any financing or continuation statement filed in connection herewith seriously misleading within the meaning of section 9-402(7) of the UCC or any other then applicable provision of the UCC unless Grantor shall have given Lender at least thirty (30) days’ prior written notice thereof and shall have taken all action (or made arrangements to take such action substantially simultaneously with such change if it is impossible to take such action in advance) necessary or reasonably requested by Lender to amend such financing statement or continuation statement so that it is not seriously misleading.

Time is Money Join Law Insider Premium to draft better contracts faster.